Prophylactic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

The aim of the present meta-analysis was to determine whether prophylactic mesh decreases the odds of parastomal hernia formation. Randomized controlled trials referenced in MEDLINE or EMBASE between 1946 and 2016 comparing prophylactic mesh to standard stoma formation were included. The primary outcome was occurrence of parastomal hernia. Secondary outcomes were parastomal hernia requiring surgical intervention and complications. Odds ratios were calculated for the primary and secondary outcomes. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on mesh type, mesh location, laparoscopic versus open, and method of hernia diagnosis. Nine randomized controlled trials with 569 participants were included. There was a significant decrease in the odds of developing a parastomal hernia in the prophylactic mesh group [odds ratio (OR) 0.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11–0.38, p < 0.00001, I ² = 36%], as well as decreased odds of requiring surgical repair (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15–0.87, p = 0.02, I ² = 0%). There was no evidence that prophylactic mesh increased the odds of surgical complications (seven studies, OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.73–2.46, p = 0.34, I ² = 34%) or stoma-specific complications (eight studies, OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40–1.05, p = 0.08, I ² = 0%). There was a subgroup effect with synthetic mesh associated with a lower incidence of parastomal hernias which was not appreciated in the biologic mesh group (test of subgroup effect p = 0.01). Five studies had a high risk of bias. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation quality of evidence was moderate. Prophylactic mesh is associated with decreased odds of parastomal hernia formation and the need for surgical repair. There is no evidence that mesh placement increases the odds of complications.